violent acts itself, colluded with the post-independence security machinery in entrenching this doctrine. Our collective failure to address these issues, or even talk about them publically, is one of the more frightening and destructive aspects of our failure to transform the security sector in Zimbabwe. As the late Edgar Tekere lamented in parliament: “I have put a lot of effort into cleansing this Party, ZANU, of its image as a ‘killer’ Party. Now it is clear that my efforts were wasted, and it is disgusting to see that instead of polishing and maintaining our security instruments of State as guardians of our statehood and people, there are efforts to use them as killer instruments among the leadership”.12 The second major challenge in dealing with the liberation legacy concerns the conflation of party and state in Zimbabwe. During the liberation struggle itself the relationship between the political leadership and the armed forces was complex and contested in both ZANU and ZAPU at various times. Both liberation parties always proclaimed that the party ruled and oversaw the gun and did so in pursuit of the noble objectives of national liberation. In postindependence Zimbabwe, ZANU (PF) proclaimed the supremacy of the party and its leadership over state institutions, including the elected parliament, on the basis that the party determined policy and the government implemented it in pursuit of national development goals. Whilst Dr Nkomo and other ZAPU leaders rejected this notion in the early 1980’s, insisting that in an independent Zimbabwe the parliament should be the supreme authority, this doctrine remained unchallenged after the Unity Accords were signed in 1987 and this remains the official position of the ruling party today. This policy is justified in the context of the liberation legacy and has on many occasions been publically proclaimed not only by political leaders but by state functionaries, including those in the security services. What does this mean for security sector governance and what has its impact been? It very obviously means what it says, namely that ruling party interests are the only legitimate expression of national interests and that state institutions and functionaries have a duty to be loyal to a political party above that of their responsibility to national institutions such as parliament. Despite the fact that expressions of this position by state functionaries are specifically outlawed by the new constitution it continues to be an ongoing reality in practice and has not been contested by the government. 12 Tekere, Edgar, “A Lifetime of Struggle”, SAPES Trust, Harare, 2007, p 142. 14